It turns out that someone has actually written a song about, yes, insurance fraud.
A reporter for the Seattle Weekly (thanks, Jonathan) turned us on to the tune.
A reporter for the Seattle Weekly (thanks, Jonathan) turned us on to the tune.
Insurance agent pleads guilty to theft for selling bogus insurance
Brenda MacLaren-Beattie, a longtime insurance agent in Des Moines, Wash., has pleaded guilty to first-degree theft for selling fake insurance to oral surgeons in two states.
Our investigation found that MacLaren-Beattie, 67, sold thousands of dollars in fake business-insurance policies, often issuing counterfeit certificates of insurance to doctors and clinics. She pleaded guilty yesterday in King County Superior Court to eight counts of first-degree theft, a felony.
From late 2001 through 2009, she issued fake insurance to 25 oral surgeons in Washington and 16 in Oregon. During that time, she is believed to have collected more than $532,000 in premiums for fictitious insurance policies. Her insurance license expired in 2009.
In some cases -- a lost camera, some water damage -- she paid out small insurance claims. One of her clients became suspicious after a claim check was issued by MacLaren-Beattie, rather than from an insurance company.
The fictitious policies were for business owners' general liability insurance. General liability insurance typically covers things like slip-and-fall accidents, employee theft, and damage to rented property.
Sentencing in King County Superior Court is expected later this month.
Our investigation found that MacLaren-Beattie, 67, sold thousands of dollars in fake business-insurance policies, often issuing counterfeit certificates of insurance to doctors and clinics. She pleaded guilty yesterday in King County Superior Court to eight counts of first-degree theft, a felony.
From late 2001 through 2009, she issued fake insurance to 25 oral surgeons in Washington and 16 in Oregon. During that time, she is believed to have collected more than $532,000 in premiums for fictitious insurance policies. Her insurance license expired in 2009.
In some cases -- a lost camera, some water damage -- she paid out small insurance claims. One of her clients became suspicious after a claim check was issued by MacLaren-Beattie, rather than from an insurance company.
The fictitious policies were for business owners' general liability insurance. General liability insurance typically covers things like slip-and-fall accidents, employee theft, and damage to rented property.
Sentencing in King County Superior Court is expected later this month.
Leave to call nine witnesses denied
The rules of evidence allow for three expert witnesses to be called at trial. The plaintiff in Leonard v. Kline ,[2011] ONSC 2730 (S.C.J.) sought leave to call nine expert witnesses at her upcoming jury trial. The list of proposed experts included a psychiatrist, psychologist, vocational expert, vocational rehabilitation consultant, accountant/actuary and others.
The issue at the plaintiff’s upcoming trial was her earning capacity. The plaintiff sought to have each expert witness give an opinion on whether she would be able to engage in gainful employment. The plaintiff’s argument was two-fold: 1) each expert approaches the issue from a different area of expertise; and 2) the jury should know what the “weight of expert” evidence is on the issue.
The defendant argued that this would be duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. The defendant only intended to call two expert witnesses.
Ellies J. did not agree with the plaintiff’s “weight of expert evidence” argument expressing his concern with trials becoming battles of the experts. He went on to consider the eight factors listed in Burgess (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wu , [2005] O.J. No. 929. His decision focused on factor seven – the degree to which there is duplication in the proposed opinions of different experts.
Upon determining that some of the proposed expert witnesses were duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. , Ellies J. proceeded to divide them into groups based on shared opinions, whether they prepared joint reports, and whether they used similar tests upon the plaintiff in which their opinion was based. The plaintiff was then given the option to choose one expert witness from each group.
This decision seems to be a good example of the court fulfilling its "gatekeeper" role with respect to experts.
The issue at the plaintiff’s upcoming trial was her earning capacity. The plaintiff sought to have each expert witness give an opinion on whether she would be able to engage in gainful employment. The plaintiff’s argument was two-fold: 1) each expert approaches the issue from a different area of expertise; and 2) the jury should know what the “weight of expert” evidence is on the issue.
The defendant argued that this would be duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. The defendant only intended to call two expert witnesses.
Ellies J. did not agree with the plaintiff’s “weight of expert evidence” argument expressing his concern with trials becoming battles of the experts. He went on to consider the eight factors listed in Burgess (Litigation Guardian of) v. Wu , [2005] O.J. No. 929. His decision focused on factor seven – the degree to which there is duplication in the proposed opinions of different experts.
Upon determining that some of the proposed expert witnesses were duplicitous [sic - duplicative]. , Ellies J. proceeded to divide them into groups based on shared opinions, whether they prepared joint reports, and whether they used similar tests upon the plaintiff in which their opinion was based. The plaintiff was then given the option to choose one expert witness from each group.
This decision seems to be a good example of the court fulfilling its "gatekeeper" role with respect to experts.
New guidelines expand preventive coverage for women
New guidelines issued by the federal government require health plans to cover many preventive services for women with no additional cost.
The Affordable Care Act requires health plans to include preventive services with no cost-sharing (ie. deductibles, copays, etc.). The guidelines issued yesterday describe the specific preventive services for women that apply. They include:
Screening for gestational diabetes
Human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA testing for women 30 years and older
Sexually-transmitted infection counseling
HIV screening and counseling
FDA-approved contraception methods and counseling
Breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
Domestic violence screening and counseling
Here's a chart showing the specific preventive service, a description of the service, and frequency (ie. whether the coverage is annual or for a specific occurrence.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
